> Trying to replace native applications with runs-in-the-browser RIAs is nothing new
There is one thing that is new: the users do not need to install a separate piece of software, and it's kept up to date by the browser vendor - which means for enterprise users one less piece of software to certify/test for updates/compatibility, and for private users one software less which installed adware on each update (Java IIRC still does) and has that "risky" association like Flash does.
Flash Player had something like 97% penetration, so for all intents and purposes it was something that you could always consider as being "there" - and users didn't mind having to install it.
I think a lot of techies underestimate people's willingness to install stuff on their PCs, especially when that stuff is needed to do tasks they really want and are a couple of clicks away.
People use the "average user" as a strawman. He is simultaneously too stupid not to install malware that claims to be a fax, and yet unwilling to exert even the slightest effort to install software he needs to get things done.
> and yet unwilling to exert even the slightest effort to install software he needs to get things done.
Enterprises often disabled (or heavily whitelisted) both Flash and Java in the browser due to malware concerns as they were (and still are) an effective vector for malware.
There is one thing that is new: the users do not need to install a separate piece of software, and it's kept up to date by the browser vendor - which means for enterprise users one less piece of software to certify/test for updates/compatibility, and for private users one software less which installed adware on each update (Java IIRC still does) and has that "risky" association like Flash does.